DEPARTMENT OF THE. NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 §. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JET
Docket No. NR9235-13
9 Jun 14
|
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 9 June 2014. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative .
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted
of your application, together with ali material submitted in
support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the
advisory opinion furnished by CNRFC Memo 5420 Ser Ni/0375 of 8
Apr 14, a copy of which is attached.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice. In making this determination, the Board
substantially concurred with the comments contained in the
advisory opinion. The Post-9/11 Veterans Education Assistance
act (Post-9/11 GI Bill, Public Law 110-252} was signed into law
on 30 June 2008 and became effective on 1 August 2009. General
descriptions of the essential components of the new law were
widely available beginning in summer 2008 and specific
implementing guidance was published in the summer of 2009.
Under the governing regulations, to be eligible to transfer
benefits, a member must be on active duty or in the selective
reserve at the time of the election to transfer such benefits.
This is an important feature of the law because the
transferability provisions are intended as an incentive vice a
Docket No. NR9235-13
penefit. Members who aré retired are not eligible to transfer
the benefits.
Evidence shows that you failed to take the steps necessary to
transfer benefits. Your application claims, essentially, that
you had served 9 1/2 years in the Marine Corps and that. “when I
tried to transfer, I was told that my years in service, (active
or reserves), needed to be 10 or more. Therefore I signed on
for four years into the Navy Reserves to meet this stipulation.”
you further claim that after your wife applied for and was
accepted at a university, that “It has now come to my attention,
as I tried to transfer my benefits and got denied, that I was
wrongfully informed on the entire situation.” Your application
further states that “Not only did the Reserves not count to my
years of service, but I was unaware that this transfer needed to
he Gone while I was on active duty.” However, you have provided
no proof that you were misled or misinformed of the requirements
of transferring your Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. Information
about the Post-9/11 GI Bill has been readily and publicly
availabie, and you could have used available resources to
educate yourself on your educational benefits.
Unger these circumstances, the Board found that no relief is
warranted. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The
names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished
upon request.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have
the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by
the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that
a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official
naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
Enclosure: CNRFC Memo 5420 Ser N1/0375 of 8 Apr 14
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5730 14
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9487 13
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CNRFC Memo 5420 Ser N1/126 of 7 Feb 14, a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2082 14
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CNRFC memo 5420 Ser N1/1169 of 20 Nov 14, a copy of which is attached. Under the governing regulations, to be eligible to transfer benefits, a member must be on active duty or in the selective reserve at the time of the election to transfer. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3933 14
“tn addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion Furnished by CNRFC ltr 5420 Ser wi/osss5 of 25 Aug 14, a copy of which is attached, After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. The Board found that NAVADMIN 203/09 published in June 2009 provided the procedures members are required to follow to transfer the Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8899 14
Your application claims “I was not counseled on the effects of my ability to transfer 9/11 education benefits prior to reenlistment. The Board concurs with the advisory opinion that changing your reenlistment contract from 3 years to 4 years will not satisfy the *service obligation for transferring your Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits since you attempted the transfer in July 2014 vice May 2014. The Board has determined and agrees with the advisory opinion, that if you wish to be eligible to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7359 14
The Board found that in 2011 as you claim, you initially submitted a request to transfer your ‘Post-9/11 GI Bill to your dependents. The Board also determined that NAVADMIN 203/09 published in June 2009 provided the procedures members are required to follow to transfer the Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to their family members. If request is disapproved, member must take corrective action and reapply.” Furthermore, the Board members took into consideration, that on 29 January 2014 you...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR876 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 September 2014. Because of a civil court case Secretary of the Navy was directed to reconsider his decision made in the Records (BCNR) to consider your case regarding your forced retirement per the FY09 Colonel SRB. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3895 14
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by HOMC memo 7220 MPO of 22 Sep 14, a copy of which is attached. Accordingly, your application has been denied. NR3895-14 for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5637 14
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR773 14
Members who are retired are not ¢€ the benefits. Because my retirement date followed 50 closely behind the 1 memo (2270un2002) , the memo was release of the Post 9/11 GI Bil not well known at my command and key points of the memo were not ement.” However, the Board disseminated to me before my retir formation about the Post-9/11 found that whether as you claim in GI Bill was not disseminated to you or the command before your retirement, information about the Post-9/1i GI Billi has...